Why endorse any American president and risk losing the 48% of the American readers that voted to Mitt Romney. What value did you hope to add to the American election? None, as far as I can see. Next time, butt out.

People appreciate integrity. People who won't read because they disagree exemplify a state of ignorance rampant in the republican parties blindness to reality..I doubt if those who would be lost would understand this magazine anyway!!!!

People appreciate integrity. People who won't read because they disagree exemplify a state of ignorance rampant in the republican parties blindness to reality..I doubt if those who would be lost would understand this magazine anyway!!!!

The Economist has disappointed me, and I suspect a large number of its readers, with this endorsement. A good part of judgement lies in discerning between what a man will say and what a man will do. The Economist's naivety in this case will be remembered. A new nation has been born. The U.S.S.A.

Given the massive expansion of the portion of the economy which the Federal government occupies, the effective collectivization of 1/7th of US GDP, and the resulting expansion of the US national debt to over 100% of GDP, all under the current President, can you please explain to me how your position supports your publication's founding statement that _The Economist_ believes in "free trade and free markets"?

Well its finaly good to see the face behind the transformation of the Economist to the Fox News Sensationalist liberal ideology based magazine that it is today.
-
Thanks for removing all objectivity to the magazine, and just repeadetly serving up the same old religious feel good liberal idealogy void of critical thought, because we need more mindless self affirming fox news like sources to make us feel good.

06/11/2012More on sales? Retail sales have grown at their slowest pace for almost a year as shoppers stick to buying only essential items, according to new research. Like-for-like sales were down 0.1% in October, compared with the same period last year, a study by the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and professional services group KPMG showed. While total sales were up 1.1%, against a 1.5% rise the year before - the slowest growth in total sales, excluding Easter, since November 2011. It follows a surprise hike in September when like-for-like sales were up 1.5% and total sales were up 3.4%, which the BRC's director general described a "something of a false dawn?. ?October?s poor performance wasn't a one off," Stephen Robertson said. "Year-to-date average growth hasn't outpaced inflation meaning overall sales volumes going backwards." October's online sales were especially poor, he said, adding that the last three months include the two weakest growth rates recorded in four years. Falling consumer confidence means people are limiting spending to essential items and are cautious about committing to big-ticket and discretionary buying," he said. EURO is a history then? Talk of Greece exiting the euro will end after critical votes in parliament this week on new austerity measures, labour reforms and the 2013 budget, Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras said on Sunday. Here is clear case of no sales, no jobs period I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

After four years, another man has:
~saving the American auto industry,
~pulling us out of the greatest recession we've ever experienced,
~killing the biggest terrorist since Hitler,
~ending an unfortunate war in Iraq and setting a date certain deadline for getting us out of another war in Afghanistan,
~making it illegal to pay women less than a man for equal work,
~easing the burden of tuition interest of college students,
~extending health care to millions and slowing the inflationary cost of healthcare dramatically,
~deftly ridding the world of Khadafi
~supporting tax credits for new energy sources for America,
~signing the Dream Act that gives citizenship to children of immigrants who were born in this country,

This interview only confirms how right I was to cancel my subscription in response to The Economist's stated reasons for endorsing Obama. On the one had, the Editor says the President's record supports the magazine's endorsement. Come again!?!?!? What record? His only claim to success is an outcome assumed to be better than a counterfactual that things would have been worse without his ill-conceived stimulus. Not worthy of endorsement. On the other hand, as for why the magazine didn't endorse Romney, the Editor argues he couldn't simply look at the governor's record, but has to consider what the candidate is "saying" (as if Obama's promises in 2008 were realistic and delivered!!!!). What an upside down logic. This makes no sense. The magazine could easily and logically argued for abstention. Pathetic.

The Economist is one of the most objective new outlets you can come across. The Economist also took a very moderate stance on this presidential election. There were many articles on what a great candidate Romney is, and he should have been able to easily sweep the presidential election because of the state of our economy. But he didn't because he didn't have to right campaign strategy and the VOTERS saw right through his wobbly platform.

This interview only confirms how right I was to cancel my subscription in response to The Economist's stated reasons for endorsing Obama. On the one had, the Editor says the President's record supports the magazine's endorsement. Come again!?!?!? What record? His only claim to success is an outcome assumed to be better than a counter-factual that things would have been worse without his ill-conceived stimulus. Not worthy of endorsement. On the other hand, as for why the magazine didn't endorse Romney, the Editor argues he couldn't simply look at the governor's record, but has to consider what the candidate is "saying" (as if Obama's promises in 2008 were realistic and delivered!!!!). What an upside down logic. This makes no sense. The magazine could easily and logically have abstained. Pathetic.

Time after time House Republicans have said thay they are blocking legislation because they want to see Obama fail. Could go two ways: If he wins, Obama can't get reelected, so no point in making him fail. But I see the alternative, driving the US economy off the cliff in December just out of sheer spite.

If Obama's only accomplishment was a reversal of -9% annualized GDP growth and monthly job losses of 800 000 per month, to neutral, it would be sufficient to deserve re-election.

That the man has prevented an economic depression and gotten the economy growing again, eliminated a staunch enemy of America (Bin Laden), extended health care to millions of Americans who previously had none, and has done it all in the face of remarkable hostility and intractable opposition is a performance par excellence adn without comparison in recent American history. I struggle to imagine who could have accomplished more while facing such opprobrium from the other side.

That this election is even close, says a lot about the American voter. I never forget what Sir Winston Churchill said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with an average voter." The American electorate who made the world suffer through two Bush Jr. presidencies, prove Sir Churchill correct in spades. And there is a good chance, the may well do so again in 24 hrs.

As usual, the Economist summarized the difficulty in this election: the ambivalence that each candidate inspires. For Romney I wonder how he would have fared choosing someone like Portman and developing a moderate conservative agenda, rather than being so tied to the Republican Congressional party. For Obama I wonder how he would have done, for example, developing an infrastructure program, for coordination of energy policy with Canada & Mexico and a more incremental approach to medical care.

Were the GOP Primary of a different character, your idea of a more conservative agenda may have won Romney the election. As it was, he spent seemingly forever grappling out a victory against characters like Santorum.

Tick-toc, tick-toc...hours to go before tsunami hits, one and done and then back to Chicago so he can become the protester in chief, or better yet, maybe we can send Obama to the European countries so he can accelerate your economic demise...brillant When Americans make a mistake, we are soon to correct it within four years. Do not ever discount the American people. Can you hear the tsunami...it will hit within 24 hours!

Dangerous to declare China a currency manipulator? With all of your resources you certainly know that China has already declared a trade war on the U.S. and the rest of the world.Do you suggest we simply allow China to continue without standing up to them and requiring a level playing field? Trade works both directions.

Romney believes he only needs tax breaks and reduced spending? Are you intentionally forgetting the dramatic increase in revenues from a vibrant economy? And he is not talking about finding phantom tax deductions, he is talking about reducing tax rates but removing some of the existing deductions which will still balance out. Remember 1986 and Reagan? Top rates reduced to 28% in exchange for fewer tax breaks? Even investment real estate deductions were removed and the existing real estate ownership was not grandfathered. Old tax laws had 90% top rates but provided huge tax breaks for specific economic behavior . . . the congressional tail wagging the dog. Government trying to dictate activity.

Obama has never demonstrated a desire to work with Republicans. How can sit there and calmly talk like he magically transform in a 2nd term, as if this is actually the Republicans fault? Obama couldn't even get a single democrat vote for his last budget proposal.

Either The Economist now has a political agenda they are trying to mask or they limited their research on the endorsement to Obama's talking points. Please stop this and let's restore some sort of intellectual honesty!

"Intellectual honesty"? If you would like to discuss intellectual honesty, please tell me, how exactly will Romney spark this "dramatic increase in revenues"? How will he a create such a "vibrant economy"? Is it by closing tax loopholes that will primarily benefit corporations and hurt the middle class? Or is it by increasing spending for the military? Or maybe it's by lessening government regulation, allowing investment banks and corporations do reenact the irresponsible behavoir that got us into this mess in the first place?

Just for the record, the dogmatism of and refusal to negotiate on behalf of the Republican party are the primary reasons Obama was not a more partisan president. To quote Mitch McConnell: "Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office". I think that should sum it up.

Corporations don't share "tax loopholes" with individuals, they each have legal tax "deductions". Romney wants to reduce tax deductions while reducing tax "rates". Low tax "rates" provide an incentive to just pay the tax now rather than find ways to defer or avoid taxes. While military spending is spending, at least it provides private sector jobs and promotes "Peace Through Strength" and reduces the odds of the U.S. being dragged into an armed conflict with a formal government, the war on terror is bad enough.
While some regulation will always be required, Obama is using regulations to kill private business and thus jobs. So yes, many regulations will be eliminated to get government out of the way and allow private business to thrive to everyone's benefit, especially the middle class. Keep in mind that corporations are run by individuals and there are individuals that act in selfish and greedy ways. Regulations and laws need to address that bad behavior and actually be enforced. But regulations should also be written in such a way that they aren't promoting bad behavior because they make no sense. One of the biggest debacles put in place by democrats was the attempt to force lenders to make home loans to people that couldn't afford the loan payments. Stories abound of claimed incomes that were never verified by the lenders. 2 forces were at work, greed to make money on the loans and self defense to keep the government off their backs. That in turn lead to credit swaps which did not require any supervision or regulations. Boom, the government tail wagging the dog.

Sorry, but Obama did't give the republicans an opportunity to even try and work with him. It was his way or the highway. Obamacare was rammed down the repbulicans throat because they didn't need republicans and they wanted to claim victory. They even passed the law in an incomplete form because they lost a seat when Ted Kennedy died. And Mitch McConnell didn't make the comment about defeating Obama the day after Obama was elected. That was in response to the way he was trying govern in a purely partisan way. So please check your dates and context before repeating democrat talking points. And I think that should sum that up!

Who do you trust most to get America back on its feet economically and would exercise control over wasteful spending of hard earned money by every living soul in this country and yet provide a safety net for unfortunate poor souls in their struggle for every day survival and at the same time provide leadership and courage to deal with extremist who want to harm or kill innocent Americans.
If you can answer this then you have voted for the wright person.

KIt is unfortunate that i had nor noticed that youe editor in chief was a Socialist. Picking a presaident who outsorced his leadership to Pelosi and Reid, apologised to everyone on USA's behalf and lost an abassador to Al Qaida out of incompetence tells me that by cancelling my subscription was the right thing to do.

I'm not saying this to stroke John's ego so that he thinks he's still young enough to interest a university co-ed. I'm asking because, from whence does his "wisdom" come? Is he even old enough to know who John Major is? To have voted at that time? To have been working a full time job back in those years?

Doubtful.

Got news for you fellows: Barrack Obama means you lose your jobs, too. (Think about it. Despite your obvious shortcomings, I think you will get it.)

@Wisq:
That's funny that an Obama supporter would call ANYONE fiscally irresponsible. You can judge Mitt by what he says he will do and support his chances of success by his past performance. I'll take his experience any day over that of a mediocre community organizer who has shown his lack of leadership and financial acumen over the past 4 years.

In fact I just heard Obama speaking (yes I do listen to both sides and look at all the issues). He spoke of the need for a strong middle class and strong ladders so that all people have an opportunity to make it to the middle class. While I agree that a strong middle class and opportunities for all are extremely important, I have to say that I laughed when he spoke of strong ladders... Would that be the struggling economy, the huge increase in the numbers on food stamps, the dependence on unemployment (with Obama getting rid of the responsibility to be actually looking for a job - even Bill Clinton supported that). A hand out is not the same as a hand up. His policies are more geared at securing a voting base than truly helping individuals in the lower and middle classes. Any parent who has to use tough love to help make their kids independent gets this concept.

I look at the facts. Obama has had the slowest growth of spending than any President in recent memory (including the much vaunted, supposedly fiscally conservative Reagan). The only reason deficits are high is because the revenues fell off a cliff, thanks to a tanking economy caused by his predecessor's mismanagement.

Your viewpoint is akin to a cancer patient now undergoing aggressive treatment and blaming his current doctor for his pain when his previous oncologist misdiagnosed him and missed the cancer.

Sadly, the rest of us non-Americans don't get a vote, and guys like you get to impose leaders like Bush Jr. on the rest of us.